kb244
Well-known
Ok so I got one of these LTM lens thats a Chiyoko (pre-minolta?) super rokkor 50 2.8, it has some cleaning marks on the front but I can only really see them if I hit the light just right.
Anyways compared to an Industar-61LD , or say a Canon 50/1.8 that I hope to get, is there anything significant I could expect from this lens, or am I better off trading/selling it off to get the Canon? Also does the red "C" signify anything.
Anyways compared to an Industar-61LD , or say a Canon 50/1.8 that I hope to get, is there anything significant I could expect from this lens, or am I better off trading/selling it off to get the Canon? Also does the red "C" signify anything.
Luddite Frank
Well-known
Why not shoot some film and see what you think ?
I have an f4 -135 Chiyokko Tele-Rokkor that is a darn fine lens...
I think the shooting quality of your 50 is probably comparable to Canon or Nikon of the same era.
AFAIK, Chiyoko-Rokkor lenses are Minolta; they didn't start using the minolta name on the lenses until the later '50s... and my Minolta-branded SR-1b SLR from 1960 is stamped "Chiyoko-Kogaku" on the top plate....
"Rokkor" comes from Mt. Rokkor, which looms large near the factory in Japan.
(According to the minolta site "the Rokkor Files").
This might be a "sleeper" lens, although not as fast as the Canon you mentioned.
Good luck,
Luddite Frank
I have an f4 -135 Chiyokko Tele-Rokkor that is a darn fine lens...
I think the shooting quality of your 50 is probably comparable to Canon or Nikon of the same era.
AFAIK, Chiyoko-Rokkor lenses are Minolta; they didn't start using the minolta name on the lenses until the later '50s... and my Minolta-branded SR-1b SLR from 1960 is stamped "Chiyoko-Kogaku" on the top plate....
"Rokkor" comes from Mt. Rokkor, which looms large near the factory in Japan.
(According to the minolta site "the Rokkor Files").
This might be a "sleeper" lens, although not as fast as the Canon you mentioned.
Good luck,
Luddite Frank
Letien
Established
This lense is for 24x32 frame so you will see some vignetting but I found it an excellent sharp lense with strong and smooth bokeh. My search reveals that it is a heliar design but I don't know how it is different than planar or sonnar.
Last edited:
David Murphy
Veteran
Nice lens. I've wondered about it as well.
dberger
Established
kb244 said:
The Super Rokkor 50/2.8 is a really fine lens, not unlike the 45/2.8 it replaced. It makes real nice images, somewhat Tessar-like wide open, with a sharp center graduating smoothly to less sharp edges. Out-of-focus imagery is very pleasing and contrast is medium. I like to use the 45mm more (one of my favorite lenses), probably for it's size, ergonomics, slightly wider view, and that it seems to be built a bit better than the 50mm. The 50mm does have a 40.5mm filter ring, which is convenient.
It is not a classical Heliar design, but not a Tessar either. Both the Super Rokkor 50/2.8 and 45/2.8 have a 5e/3g design, with a cemented triplet up front and a 2 single elements in back. The red "C" indicates a coated lens. Regarding the coverage and vignetting: I have never noticed a problem. Besides, i think the Super Rokkor 50mm came with the Minolta 35 II, which switched to the standard frame size. Anyway, the 50/2.8 and 45/2.8 work fine on standard-sized film gates.
I have never used the Industar-61LD, so I cannot comment on that. The Super Rokkor 50/2.8 is better, I think, than the Canon 50/2.8, but not as sharp as the Canon 50/1.8. I have always found the Canon 50/1.8 to be very sharp, with lower contract, but not very memorable either -- kind of plain, I guess. The Super Rokkor has a nicer look to me, a bit rounder with more character.
(All of this "imagery", "character", and "signiture" stuff is hard to define and highly subjective - take some pictures and then take my word for it
)For a real treat, hunt down the Super Rokkor 50/2 and 50/1.8 lenses. The 50/2 is a real keeper, and the 50/1.8 is a killer -- as good or better than any f2/f1.8 lens from that era, Nikon, Canon, Zeiss, and Leitz included. Too bad they made so few; it is easier to find a Minolta Super-A to use those lenses (i.e., same lenses, different mount). But, i digress.
Cheers,
David
Last edited:
Letien
Established
David,
Thanks for the info. Mine is actually 45/f2.8. Not an 50mm.
Thanks for the info. Mine is actually 45/f2.8. Not an 50mm.
None currently listed on Ebay
oscroft
Veteran
I think slight cleaning marks like that really aren't worth worrying about - they'll almost certainly make no noticeable difference to the quality of your images. It sounds to me like you've got a very interesting lens there - I hope you show us some results from it when you have them
furcafe
Veteran
I agree w/your assessment of the Super Rokkor & thanks for the info. Reminds me that I should use it more often.
dberger said:The Super Rokkor 50/2.8 is a really fine lens, not unlike the 45/2.8 it replaced. It makes real nice images, somewhat Tessar-like wide open, with a sharp center graduating smoothly to less sharp edges. Out-of-focus imagery is very pleasing and contrast is medium. I like to use the 45mm more (one of my favorite lenses), probably for it's size, ergonomics, slightly wider view, and that it seems to be built a bit better than the 50mm. The 50mm does have a 40.5mm filter ring, which is convenient.
It is not a classical Heliar design, but not a Tessar either. Both the Super Rokkor 50/2.8 and 45/2.8 have a 5e/2g design, with a cemented triplet up front and a cemented doublet in back. The red "C" indicates a coated lens. Regarding the coverage and vignetting: I have never noticed a problem. Besides, i think the Super Rokkor 50mm came with the Minolta 35 II, which switched to the standard frame size. Anyway, the 50/2.8 and 45/2.8 work fine on standard-sized film gates.
I have never used the Industar-61LD, so I cannot comment on that. The Super Rokkor 50/2.8 is better, I think, than the Canon 50/2.8, but not as sharp as the Canon 50/1.8. I have always found the Canon 50/1.8 to be very sharp, with lower contract, but not very memorable either -- kind of plain, I guess. The Super Rokkor has a nicer look to me, a bit rounder with more character.
(All of this "imagery", "character", and "signiture" stuff is hard to define and highly subjective - take some pictures and then take my word for it
For a real treat, hunt down the Super Rokkor 50/2 and 50/1.8 lenses. The 50/2 is a real keeper, and the 50/1.8 is a killer -- as good or better than any f2/f1.8 lens from that era, Nikon, Canon, Zeiss, and Leitz included. Too bad they made so few; it is easier to find a Minolta Super-A to use those lenses (i.e., same lenses, different mount). But, i digress.
Cheers,
David
vorobaz
Newbie
Samples Chiyoko Super Rokkor 50 2.8 (Fujifilm Neopan SS ISO 100) f/8-f/11:
